Systematic review reveals lower socioeconomic status drives worse outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma, highlighting the need for early social risk screening and targeted interventions.
Background: Social determinants of health critically impact outcomes along the care continuum of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This systematic review summarizes the effect of socioeconomic status (SES) factors on HCC outcomes in the United States. Methods: Electronic databases were queried for the concepts of “liver cancer”, “health disparities”, and “socioeconomic factors” on 1 March 2021. Eligible studies included an individual- or area-level SES measure such as income, education, employment, and insurance and one of the following outcomes across the clinical continuum of HCC care: incidence, screening/surveillance, diagnosis, treatment, survival, and end-of-life. Results: Of 3331 studies screened, a total of 63 studies encompassing 179 separate analyses were included in our narrative synthesis: 13 on incidence, 5 on surveillance, 19 on diagnosis, 79 on treatment, 61 on survival, and 2 on end-of-life. Insurance was the most frequent SES measure represented (50%), followed by mostly area-level income (39%), education (9%), and employment (2%). The included studies were heterogeneous regarding both SES definitions (e.g., individual vs. area-level measures) and outcome reporting. Trends of worse outcomes were generally observed with lower indicators across all SES domains and HCC outcomes, particularly in analyses using national cancer registry data (e.g., SEER and NCDB). Unadjusted racial and ethnic disparities in outcome were attenuated in six out of 23 analyses that adjusted for an SES measure. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the need for social risk screening and interventions early in the HCC care pathway. Future research should focus on HCC surveillance and end-of-life/survivorship, with greater emphasis on examination of modifiable individual-level social determinants.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ong et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: